Posted by: theoptimisticconservative | February 28, 2011

Foster parents wanted. Must endorse homosexuality.

Presumably, that’s how the advertisements will read from now on.  Britain’s High Court has ruled that a Pentecostal couple who have fostered young children for years will no longer be allowed to do so because – when asked; they didn’t bring it up themselves – they told a social worker they could not tell children under the age of 10 that a homosexual lifestyle is acceptable. (H/t: The Weekly Standard.)

The basis for this ruling is Britain’s set of Sexual Orientation Regulations, which make it an offense to “discriminate on the grounds that someone is heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual.” By the definition implied in this ruling, it is “discrimination” to be unwilling to affirmatively endorse someone else’s beliefs or behavior, even in one’s own home where only third parties are present.

This interpretation of the law is idiotic on its face.  But it was handed down by the British High Court.  The next obvious step is ruling that parents must endorse homosexuality to their own children.

Think not?  This extended treatment of the court’s ruling shows that it contains every precept that would be necessary to intervene between parents and their natural children.  Besides affirming that government authorities “can require positive attitudes to be demonstrated towards homosexuality,” and that the Sexual Orientation Regulations take precedence over the right against religious discrimination, the court opined as follows:

Article 9 [of the European Human Rights Act] only provides a ‘qualified’ right to manifest religious belief and … this will be particularly so where a person in whose care a child is placed wishes to manifest a belief that is inimical to the interests of children.

This passage echoes language used by Britain’s Equality and Human Rights Commission, which, in a brief on the case, “suggested to the Court that a child should not, in their own words, be ‘infected’ with Christian moral beliefs.”

I am 100% certain that when the Sexual Orientation Regulations were being debated early in the decade (they were implemented in 2003), opponents theorized that things just like this could happen – and advocates of the regulations swore that that was ridiculous: such ideas were the wild imaginings of fevered minds.  As always, the naysayers who warned of special-interest encroachment on individual liberty were correct.

If the British High Court deems Christian beliefs on homosexuality “inimical to the interests of children,” it will justify intervening between parents and their natural children, just as governments do the world over when child welfare is at issue.  If this kind of ruling isn’t what Parliament had in mind, back when it was considering the Sexual Orientation Regulations, now would be a good time to do something about that.

J.E. Dyer blogs at Hot Air’s Green Room and Commentary’s “contentions.”  She writes a weekly column for Patheos.

About these ads

Responses

  1. Has the British High Court made a ruling regarding the existence of God? If he never existed or at least no longer exists than I guess they must replace His wisdom and love with their own variety.

    It sounds like they’ve already decided they, not parents, will provide greater benefit to the commonwealth by “parenting” her citizens from the cradle to the grave. How sad that British citizens are no longer smart enough, nor wise enough to think for themselves. At least they’re doing well at the Oscars. Or is that being run by the courts too?

  2. Homosexual rights, including same-sex marriage have always been about societal endorsement. For homosexuals, equality = endorsement for without societal endorsement, they could never ‘feel’ equal because a minority can only feel ‘equal’, when it stands above the majority.

    Traditional Christian beliefs stand in the way of that, so they must be eliminated and it starts and ends with the children.

    Homosexual ‘rights’ are merely one aspect of the agenda pursued by the “social engineers of the left, motivated as they are by their creative utopian aspirations–expressed by the desire to impose (forcibly, if necessary) universal peace, social justice and brotherhood upon humanity–are completely oblivious to the malignant side of their own natures.”

    In England, being a Christian isn’t a crime…yet.

    England’s own Orwell warned of it, the tyranny of the left triumphant, must end in 1984.

    However, should events conspire to hand seeming victory to the left, the left’s reign in ‘merry olde England, will be short because once demography favors it, Sharia law waits in the wings, ready to step fully out of the darkness. “The rough beast, slouching toward ‘Jerusalem’ to be born”…

  3. Geoffrey -

    It has already been born, many times over, its name dominating the given names for males in many places on both sides of the channel. Please see Cousin Mark Styen for a cogent analysis of the nub of the problem; “America Alone”.

    Homosexuality is brutally narcissistic, and hopelessly selfish. It’s practice provides only self-indulgent physical pleasures but those are fleeting and joyless. One need only look at the rates of disease, suicide, and disaffection within the “community” to see its effects on its practitioners.

    Beyond these there is one additional issue. Homosexuality is sterile. It loathes that which it cannot truly have, and it seeks to destroy that which it can never mimic. Born of abuse and neglect, homosexual behavior seeks to destroy that which it craves and cannot have, marriage.

    It batters at the foundations of society by undermining the family which is the principle product of marriage. It offers cartoons of family life and demands their respect as art. It proposes absurdities it offers nothing of lasting value.

    Life is wealth. One need only see the economies of the world to see that China and India a projected to be the two most wealthy nations within then next generation. This is no accident, this is a simple fact of population, of the next generation.

    That is why so many homosexuals are also ardent utilitarians and therefore dedicated Socialists. The shared hatred of wealth is the shared hatred of the promise of new life and prosperity.

    Western civilization has turned inward. It is old, impotent, and selfish. The question is begged; can we recover from the downward spiral?

    I fear the answer to that question.

    I leave you with this quote from the greatest non-founding US President:

    “From whence shall we expect the approach of danger? Shall some trans-Atlantic military giant step the earth and crush us at a blow? Never. All the armies of Europe and Asia…could not by force take a drink from the Ohio River or make a track on the Blue Ridge in the trial of a thousand years. No, if destruction be our lot we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of free men we will live forever or die by suicide.”

    — Abraham Lincoln – From the Lyceum Speech – 1837

    A profound truth from 174 years in the past.

    Pray for enlightenment and sanity to return.

    John

  4. Foster parents wanted; orthodox Christians need not apply.

    Which is fine with the liberal elites. The rub will come when they have to reject all the orthodox Muslims.

  5. it’s about time. hell, they expelled the Jews more than 700 years ago. now it’s the Christians’ turn to be turned out.

    next up, Ireland–the snakes go marching in.

  6. Greetings from the United Kingdom on this sunny spring day.

    I would be horrified if the English High Court made a ruling in accordance with what is alleged in the “Daily Telegraph”. Fortunately, it does nothing of the sort.

    We are truely fortunate in having the full text of Lord Justice Munby’s judgment in this case (Johns v Derby County Council and the Equality and Human Rights Commission: [2011] EWHC 375 (Admin).
    The full judgment can be accessed and downloaded from the UK Courts Services judgments website: http://www.bailii.org

    The judgment is lengthy, but I would commend it to all the persons who have rushed to comment on the basis of what is reported in the “Telegraph”; third-hand in the Weekly Review, and fourth-hand here.

    I would particularly commend to these commentators LJ Munby’s response at paragraph 33 to the assertions of counsel for the Johns’. Paragraph 46 of the judgment prints the actual provisions of Art 9 of the ECHR (rather than what might be assumed on the basis of the aforesaid commentary). Paragraphs 52 – 58 contain a concise and accurate exposition of the seminal McFarlane case which set out the legal principles which guided the court in this case. Finally, the conclusions of the court are set out at paragraphs 107 – 109 wherein it can be seen that this case did not make any ruling or order in accordance with what the Telegraph alleges (or in accordance with what the commentators who rushed into print on the basis of the Telegraph report have assumed).

    There are lessons to be learned from this case. After readers of this blog have taken the opportunity to read the actual judgment, I may return to address the issues that it raises, and the lessons that it teaches us – particularly as to the reliability (or otherwise) of agenda and ideologically motivated commentary.

    Yours respectfully, True Brit.

  7. Now, lets cut to the chase!

    The Johns (an elderly couple who had last fostered a child a decade ago) notified the local authority agency in charge of vetting prospective foster-parents as to suitability that they were again interested in fostering a child. In the intervening years they had applied to the adoption/fosterage agency several times, but when they were approved as foster parents they had failed to take up the offer to act as foster parents without giving any reason.
    When the Johns again approached the fosterage authorities, the latter were rather mystified and guarded in their response because of their experience from previous dealings. They were even more sceptical when the Johns themselves raised their strong disapproval of homosexuality and to Islam, and that they would expect that any child being fostered by them would have to observe a lifestyle in accordance with the views of the Johns. The fosterage agency (not surprisingly) decided that they would need to consider whether the Johns were ‘up front”.
    Before the fosterage agency had come to any decision, the Johns, accompanied by their Lawyer, approached the agency alleging they were about to be discriminated against on the grounds of their “Christian” religious beliefs and demanding the agency refer their fitness as foster parents to the determination of the courts. The agency agreed to refer the matter to the High Court under its statutory procedures. It didn’t realize that the Johns were fronting several right-wing groups who were trying to ‘set up’ the fosterage authorities and generate a ’cause celebre’.

    The people who have rushed into comment should note that the fosterage authority had made no determination whatsoever that the Johns were either fit or unfit to act as foster parents.

    When the matter arrived before Lord Justice Munby (A no-nonsense judge of the old school) he immediately saw through what was going on. He was scathing in his views of the submissions made by the counsel for the Johns which he described as “a travesty of the reality” (Lies and inventions in the polite language of the law) and that the Johns had not been discriminated on the grounds of religion or on any other grounds. LJ Munby also set out in detailed and cogent fashion, the relationship between law, the individual citizen, and religion in a modern democratic society in which all citizens are equal before the law, and in which religious freedom is respected by the law, but not endowed by it.

    In concluding his judgment, LJ Munby made no order whatsoever. He observed that the fosterage agency had as yet made no ruling on the suitability of the Johns as foster parents, and that the agency had in fact observed the letter of the law in its dealings with the Johns.

    Insofar as the report carried in the Daily Telegraph insinuates that the Johns were rejected as prospective foster parents on grounds of their alleged religious views, I can do no better than repeat Lord Justice Munby’s comment on the submissions made by the John’s lawyer: the report carried in the Telegraph is “A travesty of reality”.

    There are some lessons to be learned by Carl, Geoffrey, Fahvaag, Floroy, Vinnie, and Fuster, who all swallowed the Telegraph nonsense, hook line and sinker. There are people out there in the far right media who have an agenda. They don’t much care for the truth when it doesn’t suit their prejudices, and they don’t care about printing lies if lies suit their agenda.
    There is another lesson. Right wing commentators are inclined to refer to each other as authoritive sources

    • dear TrueBrit…….. fuster was laughing at the report and the opticon’s endless defense of the poor and besieged Christians in the USA and elsewhere who are being persecuted into associating with openly homosexual human beings.

    • Firstly, no comment I made is refuted by your claim that the Telegraph’s reportage is biased.

      Secondly, there is a difference between unconscionable bias and over simplification. The Telegraph over simplified the story but not to the extent where it misreported the story. Indeed, its your evident bias, which precludes you’re acknowledging Lord Justice Munby’s biases and, he is biased.

      But yes, lets cut to the chase!

      First, thanks a lot for placing us in the position of having to wade through the literally tons of material that a modern judicial opinion consists of, no Solomonic wisdom or brevity in sight, reams of verbiage, only to arrive at what essentially amounts to … ‘I side with the opinion that traditional Christian values are discriminatory and invalid! But I won’t come right out and say it and I’ll even claim that I’ve rendered no judgment.’ Which is simply a subtle means of ruling in the states favor and allowing the state to refuse to allow Christians to adopt.

      You state, “They were even more sceptical when the Johns themselves raised their strong disapproval of homosexuality and to Islam”

      This is factually incorrect, the brief unequivocally states that the Johns raised “raised their strong disapproval of homosexuality” in response to direct questions by the Foster Care agency. They also said they wouldn’t be comfortable taking a child to a mosque, in effect being asked to endorse a religion with which they disagree.

      The brief also makes clear that the Johns ‘condemn the sin, not the sinner’ and are comfortable enough with homosexuality to visit gay relatives without noticeable discomfort.

      The brief also makes clear that the Foster Agency places children with foster parents who share the same values, as much as possible. In a country such as England with a large Christian population how long would it be before a child with a background commensurate with the Johns appeared? Yet the Foster Agency evidently never considered that factor with the Johns…sounds like an agenda to me.

      As for, “they would expect that any child being fostered by them would have to observe a lifestyle in accordance with the views of the Johns” what natural parent does not expect their child to observe a lifestyle consistent with their values? That’s the very point of parenting.

      News flash! LJ Munby and your denial that this is, in fact, a denial of adoption based solely upon rejection of the John’s religious beliefs, does not equate to ‘reality’. It is merely your opinion.

      Munby’s opinion stands because of his position not because of his legal reasoning which is clearly biased in favor of the ‘multi-cultural state’, evidenced by the Foster Agencies assertion that the factual principle at play in their obvious, if not yet formalized, rejection of the John’s application is based upon, “In relation to their expressed views on same sex relationships, Sally (the social worker) stressed that these views did not equate with the Fostering Standards which require carers to value individuals equally and to promote diversity.”

      After you wade through the reams of verbiage and rationalization what you end up with is the following:

      Lord Justice Munby concluded that the attitudes of potential foster carers to sexuality are relevant when considering an application for approval and also concluded that he should not grant permission for the couple to adopt.

      “If children, whether they are known to be homosexuals or not, are placed with carers who “evince an antipathy, objection to or disapproval of, homosexuality and same-sex relationships, there may well be a conflict with the local authority’s duty to “safeguard and promote” the “welfare” of looked-after children”.

      In plain English, what that means is that, as the law is presently written, bureaucrats can decide that strongly held, traditional Christian beliefs preclude Christians from adopting, solely based upon their religious beliefs because those beliefs conflict with promoting sexual diversity, i.e. homosexuality. The Telegraph and J.E. got it exactly right, at least the essence of it, if not the particulars but nice try Truebrit.

      • I never said that the report in the “Telegraph” was “biased” or was a “simplification”. I said that insofar as it purported to say that the Johns had been refused approval as foster parents because of their religious views, it was untruthful.

        It is a pity that when reading through LJ Munby’s lengthy judgment (apparantly trawling for extracts to quote out of context) the essential argument he was making seems to have escaped you completely. It also seems to have escaped you that the fostering agency has NEVER found that the Johns are unsuitable to be foster parents (in spite of their obvious efforts to bait the agency into rejecting them). Neither did LJ Munby make any order, declaration, or determination as to the suitability or otherwise of the Johns.

        Your final two paragraphs are particularly ridiculous. Good people, including committed Christians, adopt, foster, and provide respite care for troubled and neglected children all the time under the regime operating in the United Kingdom. Committed Christians sit on the committees which determine suitability of prospective adoptive parents. So do committed Moslems and Jews. So do people of no faith whatsoever. Nothing whatsoever exists in the law, nor in the criteria set down by the law (enacted by the democratically elected legislature), that precludes people of faith from acting as adoptive or foster parents.
        To extrapolate that this case might be the prequel to parents with religious views antagonistic to homosexuality having their children taken from them (as the optimistic conservative has) is pure hysterical nonsense unsupported by fact or evidence. In fact, such an interference by the state would absolutely and certainly run foul of article 9 of the ECHR as well as the article enshrining family rights. The Telegraph and JE got it exactly wrong. As did you.

        Read the judgment again.

        (In passing: most Christians of my acquaintance do not see attitudes towards homosexuality as the central issue of their faith. Antagonism towards homosexuals and homosexuality seems to be the obsession, not of the vast majority of committed christians, but of a small minority of fundamentalists)

        • Are you being purposely obtuse or merely rushing to respond? Reread the second paragraph of my response. Not only did I not claim that you said that the Telegraph had oversimplified the story, I didn’t even imply that you’d said that. That was my interpretation of the veracity of their reportage, not yours.

          LJ Munby’s essential argument did not escape my notice despite his inordinately ‘lengthy’ tract, which sought to obfuscate the matter so as to claim he hadn’t reached a ruling, when in fact he knew that ruling in the manner he did was giving the Foster Care Agency the ‘greenlight’ without the formality of doing so. Ah, isn’t plausible deniability, a wonderful thing, when we scheme to deceive?

          “Your final two paragraphs are particularly ridiculous”

          Really? The first of those two paragraph’s is a direct quote from LJ Munby…and is taken from his final summery. The last paragraph is repeating in plain english what the consequences of that quoted paragraph actually mean.

          It’s clear you have a problem with the plain meaning and consequences of judicial rulings, obviously you possess intelligence which leaves but one explanation for your denial of the plainly obvious; an agenda which places its furtherance above objective consideration of the issues.

          Now go ahead and use projection to accuse me of the same thing, it’s the only argument left to you.

          But before you do, consider this; “Intellectual honesty is not an option. It is the coin necessary, to gain the right, to sit at the table of debate.” anonymous

          • 1. If your concept of “intellectual honesty” means picking out words and sentences and then quoting them out of context, we do indeed have very different understandings of the meaning of intellectual honesty.

            2. You still don’t get it. LJ Munby has not given the green light (or any other coloured light) to the fostering agency to refuse (or approve) the John’s application. If the Johns’ pursue their application (something I doubt given their own history of dealings with fostering agencies, and given that the Learned Judge “rumbled” their stunt to engineer the refusal of their application on grounds of their “religious” beliefs). However, if they do, their application will presumably be dealt with in like manner to any other applicants, irrespective of race creed or colour. And if refused, they have an appeal against refusal to the family Division of the High Court (Not LJ Munby).

            • Intellectual honesty is ensuring that any words taken, reflect the context and the words I quoted did so. That is demonstrated by your silence to my rebuttal in pointing out that your characterization of my last two paragraphs “as ridiculous” were in fact a direct quote and my paraphrasing in plain english what the meaning and consequences of the quote meant.

              It is not I who doesn’t get it, nor is it you. We both understand what the other is saying, I am simply not adopting the intellectual arrogance you espouse, nor am I fooled by your obfuscation of what I’m saying.

              When you assert that the Foster Agency made no determination as to the John’s suitability, you purposely ignore the entire tenor of their questioning of the Johns. It’s a foregone conclusion as to how they would have ruled and only one with an agenda could deny it. Had the Johns waited until that determination was formal it would have removed your ‘talking point’ but the ‘writing’ was firmly upon the wall.

              When you assert that Munby didn’t greenlight the Foster Agency’s interpretation of the current laws, you directly contradict Munby’s own summary quote; “If children, whether they are known to be homosexuals or not, are placed with carers who “evince an antipathy, objection to or disapproval of, homosexuality and same-sex relationships, there may well be a conflict with the local authority’s duty to “safeguard and promote” the “welfare” of looked-after children”. [emphasis mine]

              If you must, dig the hole deeper Truebrit but there’s no cigar down that pit.

              Agreeing to disagreement is probably the best we can hope for but when opticon’s ‘gleeful hyperbole’ comes true, you’ll predictably deny ever having this conversation or that you ever denied that inevitable consequence of Munby’s ruling. But you’re now on record as having done so and to deny it in the future would be an example of intellectual dishonesty, which will remove you from serious debate.

              • You people will all be speaking Spanish long before any of the Opticon’s “predictions” come true.

                Adios, now.

  8. With respect, Truebrit, you have recounted a “he said” to the UKT’s “she said” (or vice versa).

    What matters is what the High Court ruled. The court ruled that being opposed to the endorsement of homosexuality in the matter of childrearing is “discrimination” for the purposes of the Sexual Orientation Regulations. It used language suggestion that Christian belief on the matter is “inimical to children.”

    This is wrong in every aspect: as law, as a philosophy of government, as an attitude toward individual liberty. That’s the point the readers here are addressing.

    • dear opticon, will you point to language that the court used, and not the paraphrasing of the court’s language in your Christian Concern link, where the court directly addressed Christianity?

      I can’t download much on this particular machine.

    • Wrong again. When in a hole you should stop digging.

      1. Lord Justice Munby’s judgment did NOT state, either expressly or by implication, that being “opposed to the endorsement of homosexuality in the matter of childrearing is “discrimination” for the purposes of the Sexual Orientation Regulations”.

      2. Neither Lord Justice Munby’s judgement, expressly, or by implication, nor the Sexual Orientation Regulations 2003 and 2007, suggest, or use language that suggests, that Christian belief on the matter (of homosexuality, or attitudes to homosexuality) is “inimical to children”.

      If they did it would indeed be wrong. But, of course, they don’t.

      I suggest you now read the judgement before you make yourself look any sillier. When you have done that, you might take some time to read the Equality Act 2006 and the Sexual Orientation Regulations 2007 (Made under the enablement of the Equality Act). Finally, you should read Article 9 of the ECHR.

      Finally, one matter should not be allowed pass without remark because it highlights both your style of commentary and your journalistic sloppyness. in your commentary you include a reference to Art 9 ECHR which is in inverted commas. The implication being that it is a straight quotation from LJ Munby’s judgment. It is not quite. It is a sentence extracted from a long paragraph (107) which in itself is part of a series of paragraphs expounding an argument which is very very different from what you use it to imply. Article 9, indeed, only provides a “qualified” right to manifest religious belief. But Lord Justice Munby himself explains why this must be so elsewhere in his judgement while dealing with the relationship between law and religion. He uses the example of Polygamy – a practice allowed by certain religions, but prohibited and criminalized under the law of each and every one of the nations that subscribe to the ECHR. The European Court has conversely decided that Ireland’s outright ban on abortion

  9. (sorry, I inadvertently posted my reply before it was completed)

    was not inconsistent with the provisions of the ECHR (Ireland was taken to the European Court by an Irish woman who claimed that she had a right to have an abortion in Ireland, and that by forcing her to go to the UK for an abortion she was being denied her Convention rights). Ireland pleaded that Art 9 protected the right of Ireland’s democratically elected legislature to make laws which reflected its Roman Catholic ethos. The European Court agreed.

  10. GB — thanks for the forensic analysis. That’s taking one for the team, for sure. Since the points I cited from the ruling are, in fact, directly from the ruling, Truebrit has expended an awful lot of words to convey the effective point that he disagrees with me.

    See the link in the fourth paragraph for a quick guide to where the cited points come in the ruling. That link has its own link to the official ruling, and gives the paragraph number for each of the aspects of the ruling it cites.

    As for what the court “didn’t say”: the US Constitution doesn’t say Christians are to enjoy freedom of religion. It doesn’t say Muslims or Jews or Buddhists are. It says “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

    The language here has been interpreted to apply to Christians, etc — just as the language of British (and EU) law were interpreted to apply to a foster-care situation involving Pentecostal Christians, BECAUSE OF THEIR STATUS AS PERSONS MANIFESTING THEIR PARTICULAR BELIEFS, even though no law calls out Christians, or Pentecostal Christians, specifically. It is the height of speciousness to suggest that the central issue is not their religious beliefs, or to pretend that it was not the religious beliefs — which they hold because they are Christians — that interested the court.

    One might as well say that Christians cannot expect to have freedom of religion in the US because the Constitution doesn’t SAY “Christians shall have freedom of religion.” It only says “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

    • Seeking reassurance from your chorus?

      God only knows what point you are trying to make now.

      The fact is that you hit upon this story in the Telegraph because it seemed to support your prejudices and agenda. Unluckily for you, the report was grounded on a basic untruth. Even more catastrophically for your credibility, you then launched yourself into gleeful hyperbole by speculating that the judgment in the Johns’ case might be used by the government (or courts – one isn’t sure) to interfere with the upbringing of British children by their parents.

      Even more unluckily for you, the original and complete judgment is publicly available online.

      Predictably, your admiring chorus also blundered into print in perfect harmony.

      In short, you goofed.

      kindest regards,

      True Brit

      (p.s. Why do you hate and despise Europeans so much?)

      • Since you tangentially referred to me, etiquette allows me to interject; we do not ‘hate’ Europeans, we do despise those of whom John Stuart Mill spoke of, “War is an ugly thing but not the ugliest of things; the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feelings, which thinks that nothing is worth war, is much worse.  A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing that is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.”

        When those ‘miserable creatures’ duplicitously undermine the efforts of those ‘better men’ who keep them ‘safe at night’… contempt is more than they deserve. An ingrate is a despicable creature and much of Europe, through its actions, has revealed itself to be an ingrate.

        They deserve the dhimmitude that shall shortly be their lot but not the cruelty that shall be used to impose that dhimmitude upon them. But then, “who knew that Islam was so brutal toward those it conquers, who refuse to convert?”

        Consider the choice that waits you in the not to distant future; real second class non-citizenship or conversion and joining the ranks of the oppressors, in effect, becoming a collaborator.

        I wonder which one you’ll choose?

        But then, you know that already, don’t you?…

        • You must feel so much better getting all that bile off you chest.

          So much hate in such a small mind.

          • Bile?
            “Talk sense to a fool and he calls you foolish!” Euripides

            Small mind?
            “When they attack one personally, it means they haven’t a single political argument left.” Margaret Thatcher

  11. Quoting from TrueBrit quoting the judge (an unimpeachable source): “If children, whether they are known to be homosexuals or not, are placed with carers who “evince an antipathy, objection to or disapproval of, homosexuality and same-sex relationships, there may well be a conflict with the local authority’s duty to “safeguard and promote” the “welfare” of looked-after children”.

    So, the judge didn’t deny foster parentage to the Johns, and the agency did not deny foster parentage to the Johns, but the judge greenlighted the agency to do so.

    Well, that makes all the difference. And I apologize that my copy of the Reports of the British High Court has not yet arrived in the post.

    • dear, cousin vinnie,

      my wives and I are very devout members of the Church of Latter-Day Saints. We adhere to the traditional teachings of the Church, its original scriptures and the word of our Prophet, Joseph Smith (pbuh).

      All of them teach us that negritude is the mark of God’s disfavor. Consequently, we teach all of our children and foster-children to revile black people as sinners and to refuse to have any cordial dealings with them. We do not accept them as our equals and we hope to instill in our foster children that these people wer turned dark because they are sinners and carry a taint.

      Just as that lovely Pentacostal couple do, we insist that statutory regulation that restricts instilling these teachings in children who legally are wards of the state should have no bearing as to whether that same state allows us to assume temporary guardianship of these children.

      We demand that there be no greenlighting that keeps us from denouncing black sin.

      • Thank heavens someone actually got the point!

        • the opticon has little or no understanding of law AFAIK

          knows quite a bit about religion.

  12. Well, Fuster, you would be the exception among followers of the LDS religion whom I have known heretofore. And, your view would differ substantially from that of the President of the church.

    However, to refocus on the case at hand, it is pretty much standard Christian belief that homosexual sex is bad. The word “abomination” is used in Scripture. Of course, notwithstanding Scripture, Revisionists hold to a different view. And, though I am no expert on orthodox Judaism or Islam, I don’t believe homosexual sex is viewed as good for the orthodox of those religions, either. In other words, such a view historically has been right down mainstreet of the three major religions.

    My point was that the politically correct elites will only have any cognitive dissonance when they have to deny foster parentage to the Muslims.

    P.S. Sexual preference has not been held to be a suspect class in this country like race.

    • Vinnie, (Mormonism started here in NY. Moroni came to visit Joe Smith (pbuh) right in the Empire State, so we stick to the basics, not for all that revisionist crap added in the 20th century)

      the real point is that these children are wards of the state and it’s the state that’s responsible for their education and well-being. the state gets to make the rules, not anyone applying for a paid position helping the state in raising some of the kids.

  13. I’ll let you break it to the Muslims, Fuster.

    The Mormons took it rather well when we said you can’t have more than one wife at a time.

    But you have to acknowledge that government has now become anti-Christian, not just neutral. It is one thing to slap down a minority cult, quite another to oppose the majority or plurality religion. The official position of the C of E, as expressed in its Lambeth Conference, has been that homosexual acts are sinful. (Yeah, I know, the position is more honored in the breach than the observance over there.)

    • Vinnie, they did not take it at all well when they first got told that. There’s a long trail of blood that they left after leaving New York and before setting up “state-keeping” at the Great Salt Lake.

      I’m not at all bothered by a separation between government and Christianity. I don’t mind Christianity, I’m fairly fond of it overall, but it’s got a mixed record, all in all.

      Homosexuality neither appeals to me nor does to much bother me. I tend to find that the sex life of anyone not myself or a partner (actual or anticipated) of mine to be vastly uninteresting.

      As long as no one’s frightening the horses, let people engage in their always-weird pursuit of happiness.

  14. [...] parents who merely can’t agree to endorse homosexuality to children under the age of 10 are denied any further opportunities to take in foster children.  Such was the judgment of the Derby City Council against Owen and Eunice Johns in 2010.  The [...]

  15. [...] foster parents who merely can t agree to endorse homosexuality to children under the age of 10 are denied any further opportunities to take in foster children. Such was the judgment of the Derby City Council against Owen and Eunice Johns in 2010. The council [...]


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 236 other followers

%d bloggers like this: